[From Bruce Nevin (2000.1014.2038 EDT)]
Bruce Nevin (2000.1012.1236 EDT)--
>Methodology for applying the Test when a controlled variable is
>under conflict is so far as I know unspecified. And in general,
>when we test for controlled variables, how do we know that conflict
>is not involved? How can we distinguish the following two cases:
>
>1. Subject is controlling X at value m.
>2. Subject is controlling X at value a, and is also controlling X
>at value z, and the outcome is that the subject appears to be
>controlling X at the value m.
I was wrong, and these can be distinguished, but conflict complicates the picture, and there are some methodological issues with the Test when internal conflict is present.
Case 1, symmetrically maxed out. Suppose the conflicting control systems are both exerting maximum output. Disturbance assists one control system or the other. This gives the appearance that the disturbance is overpowering control of X at value m. No matter how weak you make the disturbance, if it moves the value toward a (assisting control at value b) or if it moves the value toward b (assisting control at value a), it looks like you are overwhelming control at value m. Yet when the disturbance ceases, the value returns to m, the equilibrium point of the conflict. This appearance of control that is infinitely easy to overpower is evidence of maxed-out conflict.
Case 2, symmetrical but not maxed out. Suppose the two systems are exerting much less than maximum output while maintaining an equilibrium point at value m. This is evidence of a higher-level control system setting the value m and exerting some output from both of the opposing control systems to maintain that value against disturbances. Example: opposing muscles are in tension against one another, maintaining posture in readiness for action (muscle tone). Disturbance toward either value a or value b meets resistance from the counteracting control system tending to restore the value to m. Not hard to Test at all, and you get three controlled variables with one Test (with disturbances in both directions), two at the lower level and one at the higher.
Case 3, assymmetrical equilibrium. Suppose the system controlling value a is maxed out, but the system controlling value b is not. This gives the appearance of control at intermediate values such as m, but with an odd assymmetry of resistance: disturbance toward value a is resisted by the system controlling value b, disturbance toward value b cannot effectively be resisted by the maxed-out system controlling value a. Why would the stronger system not overpower the weaker one until the value was b, and keep it there? A higher-level control system must be controlling some other variable, maybe a sequence perception, and the appearance of controlling X near the value m is incidental. Perhaps there are neurotic behaviors that come out of internal conflicts of this type. I haven't been able to imagine an example. Maybe it doesn't occur.
It seems that internal conflict should not last long. Sustained error should lead to reorganization.
Higher levels of control sometimes involve "deferred gratification." This can feel like conflict. For example, a sequence perception in which control of perception Y in accord with reference a is deferred until after successful control of perception X (or of the same perception X in accord with a different reference signal). Or control of a Principle can override control of a lower-level perception with something like internal conflict. I'm hungry and I want to pick up the apple in the bowl and eat it but I am a visitor and that would be impolite. I want to respond in kind to sarcastic or abrasive language, but I have learned (a principle?) that this is ineffective and will not accomplish my aim in saying what the person replied to in that way. That kind of thing. Being civilized. This can feel like internal conflict, and indeed like a tradeoff between internal conflict and interpersonal conflict, but is it really? Or is there some other mechanism by which the higher level overrides the lower level of control, with some residue sometimes of physiological consequences of control starting at the lower level and then --
Stopping? Ending? Being thwarted, opposed, in conflict? The feelings of hunger persist. The feelings of anger may persist. That does not necessarily mean that control at the lower level persists -- control of eating that apple or of retaliating against that person.
Suppose one Tested for the higher level of control by exactly the sort of disturbances that illustrate the two cases (apple near a hungry non-friend guest, gratuitous insult in response to a careful presentation). If the apple is uneaten, and there is no retaliation to the insult, is it because of the higher level of control, or because of an absence of the lower level of control? We would have to assume the lower level of control (universalism, "he surely would do as I would do"). Is such an assumption valid?
Maybe this sketch of socalled "impulse control" and the like is off the mark. If so, then what is a proper PCT account of it?
Bruce Nevin
···
At 12:37 PM 10/12/2000 -0700, Bruce Nevin wrote: